AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

This chapter will avoid the designations "New Testament" and "Old Testament"
since these terms create the false impression that one body of writings supersedes
the other. Instead, the terms employed here will be "Greek Testament" and "Hebrew
Testament," which both indicate a distinction based on original language of
composition.

The Greek Testament is a collection of twenty-seven books reflecting the influence
of a Jewish religious teacher, Jesus of Nazareth, who died around the year 30
of the common era. Four of the Greek Testament books, called gospels, bear the
names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These writings present an account of
Jesus' public teaching and deeds. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, referred
to as "synoptic," share a common view, as well as common vocabulary, sentence
structure, and narrative order, all based on the use of common sources. The
fourth gospel, John, often renders variant views or traditions.

All four accounts are anonymous since they offer no internal identification
of the writers. Luke, for example, states clearly at the outset that he found
it necessary to do research in order to write his account, one of the many then
circulating. Although the 2lst chapter of John does speak of eye-witness testimony,
that chapter is a later addition, the gospel itself coming to a full stop with
the 20th chapter.

Besides the four gospels, the Greek Testament collection includes the Acts
of the Apostles, a narrative that relates the early history of Jesus' followers
immediately after his death. Twenty-one of the writings within the collection
are epistles (1) written after
Jesus' death and addressed to communities of his followers: fourteen of these
have been attributed to Paul while the others are variously attributed to James,
Peter, John, and Jude. The last work within the collection is a prophetic book
of visions called the Apocalypse or Book of Revelations, which offers a vision
of the future, of the end of the physical world.

Unifying Theme

The centrality of Jesus among those influenced by accounts of his
personality, teaching, and deeds, is the common element binding these books
into some kind of unity. Otherwise the works sometimes represent differing interpretations
of his life and thought. Since Jesus himself never left a written document,
the twenty-seven books, composed years after his death, attempt to interpret
his life and significance for his followers. These efforts, which are not always
harmonious, reflect the beliefs of the communities for which they were written
rather than the actual words and deeds of Jesus himself. Therefore, some scholars
of scripture draw a distinction between the Jesus of faith and the Jesus of
history. The former refers to the words and deeds of Jesus as filtered through,
and interpreted by and for, the believers within the early Christian communities.
The latter concerns Jesus as he actually lived and taught. What the twenty-seven
books of the Greek Testament convey is the Jesus of faith, a subject which will
be explored later in this section.

The Greek Testament as a Collection of Writings

These books of the Greek Testament, which evolved individually, took centuries
to be gathered together into a collection. Since communication between scattered
communities in the first and second centuries was limited at best, and since
a unified network of religious leaders capable of creating a commonly accepted
pool of information emerged only gradually, one religious community possessing
a gospel or letter was often unaware of other communities in possession of similar
documents. Hence each one of the original books was known mainly to the particular
person or community to which it was addressed. Indeed, some writing of Paul
seems to have been lost (Col. 4:l6). Gradually, and only with a great deal of
debate, canons (or lists) were formed, enumerating the books to be included
within the collection, as well as those to be excluded. Among those excluded
are gospels, now called apocryphal, bearing such distinguished names as Peter,
Thomas, and Nicodemus. The canon or list of books of the Greek Testament was
finally fixed in the 4th century, more than 300 years after Jesus' death.

The Element of Diversity

The individual books themselves represent a wide diversity of meaning. Chronologically,
the first book to be written is Paul's initial letter to the Thessalonians,
composed around the year 5l, or approximately twenty-one years after Jesus'
death. That letter contrasts sharply with the letters to Timothy and Titus,
probably written around the year l25, or about a century after Jesus' death.
In between are the gospels of Mark (65-70), Matthew and Luke (80-85), and
John (90-95). Therefore, the writing itself occurred over a period of about
75 years, during which the Christian movement underwent significant development
and change.

Geographically, the life of Jesus unfolded and terminated mainly in the two
provinces of Galilee and Judea. In the synoptic gospels, the public ministry
of Jesus lasts only one year, begins in the northern province of Galilee,
and terminates with only one journey to the southern province of Judea. In
John, however, the public ministry lasts about three years and includes movement
back and forth between the two provinces.

After his death, Jesus' followers began to spread northward to Antioch in
Syria, and westward to Greece and Rome. With geographical change came ethnic
and linguistic change. Jesus himself directed his teaching to his fellow Jews,
and that teaching was in turn absorbed by Hellenized Jews
(2) and passed on to the wider Gentile world of
Greece and Rome. Jesus spoke Aramaic while the collection of documents is
written in Greek, the common language of the day. Given these geographic,
ethnic, and linguistic changes effected across a broad time span, and a continuously
evolving tradition of oral teaching, it is not surprising that diverse interpretations
of Jesus' message, and of Jesus himself, emerged.

The Kingdom and the Prophetic Jesus

One portrayal of Jesus, as given in the synoptic gospels, is that of the
itinerant healing prophet announcing the advent of God's kingdom. At the outset,
Jesus' mission appears to be similar to that of his predecessor prophet
(3) John the Baptist, whose message about the Kingdom
Jesus echoes. After John the Baptist's imprisonment, Jesus continues the mission
of John. In this representation, rather than call attention to himself, Jesus
focuses on the rule of God in the lives of people. This is the portrait of
Jesus that emerges strongly in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

To understand Jesus within this synoptic context, one must understand the
notion of the kingdom of God prevalent among Jesus' fellow Jews. Throughout
the Hebrew Testament there are references to the Kingship of God, described
as everlasting (Ps. l45) and intimately linked with the people of Israel (Is.
44:6). The Kingdom or rule of God over the lives of all people was, in addition,
perceived as something that would come to full realization sometime in the
future: "And in the days of those kings, the God of heaven will set up
a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left
to another people" (Dan 2:44). At his own services, Jesus probably would
have heard a version of the following prayer, still recited in synagogues
today: "Magnified and sanctified be his great name in the world which
he hath created according to his will. May he establish his kingdom during
your life and during your days, and during the life of all the house of Israel,
even speedily and at a near time; and say you, Amen."

It is in light of this expectation of God's dominion over the lives of people
that one must read Mark's summary of Jesus' teaching, which declares, "After
John had been arrested, Jesus came into Galilee proclaiming the Gospel of
God: 'The time has come; the kingdom of God is upon you; repent, and believe
the Gospel'" (l:l4). Here "gospel" (4)
refers to a joyous announcement rather than any written document, since no
Greek Testament books were yet in existence. According to one interpretation,
Jesus' announcement indicates that the establishment of this spiritual, God-centered
kingdom would coincide with the end of the world as it was known then. Jesus
proclaimed the fatherhood of God who exercised sovereignty over the lives
of people in a new spiritual world, and he saw himself not as the focus of
the kingdom, but as its herald. Although his notion of the kingdom was spiritual
and non-political, some passages still indicate that he viewed himself and
his apostles as holding positions of authority within that kingdom. This point
will be reviewed later in reference to the question of Jesus' death.

Scholars debate whether this kingdom, as envisioned by Jesus, was to be something
purely internal, or something external and visible, and if the latter, whether
it was something to be established immediately in its complete form, or whether
it was to evolve gradually. The Greek Testament documents allow a range of
possible interpretations about these questions.

This notion of the kingdom is important in the development of Western civilization.
Beginning with the Middle Ages, theologians tended to equate the kingdom with
the church. They identified the apostles of Jesus, those whom he had sent
to spread his teaching on the kingdom, as the predecessors of bishops and
popes, the very men who eventually began to exercise not only spiritual but
political authority as well.

Entering into the Kingdom

To be a part of this kingdom, Jesus exhorted people to practice behavior
suggested by the Beatitudes, the Our Father prayer, and the Sermon on the
Mount. The literary form of the Beatitudes clearly derives from Jewish poetry,
evident in the opening line of the first Hebrew psalm which begins, "Happy
is the man . . . ." Similarly, the Beatitudes begin, "Happy are
the poor . . . ."

The content of the Beatitudes also is anchored in Jewish religious thinking.
For example, the reference to the meek inheriting the earth comes directly
from Psalm 37:ll. That the merciful receive mercy reflects the Talmudic saying,
"He who has mercy on his fellow creatures obtains mercy from heaven."
Furthermore, the prayer beginning "Our Father," a phrase common
in Jewish liturgy, follows a Semitic pattern of development: opening praise,
petition, and closing praise. Such a structure is evident, for example, in
the synagogue service of morning and evening.

The insistence on love in the Sermon on the Mount, and in other passages
of the Greek testament, erroneously thought by some writers to be a uniquely
Christian contribution, also has antecedents in Jewish theology. For example,
when Jesus says, "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to
them, for this is the law and the prophets" (Mt 7:12), he echoes a tradition
stated also by Rabbi Hillel: "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to
your neighbor. That is the entire Torah." Jesus' thinking and preaching,
rooted in their native Judaism, constituted a call for spiritual perfection
to prepare for the establishment of the Kingdom of God. The hearer's obligation
was to listen attentively and receptively to this preaching and abide by it.

The Kingdom and Divine Forgiveness

What if those attempting to enter the kingdom failed to live up to its lofty
expectations through human weakness? Were they condemned to some permanent
expulsion? In the thinking of Jesus, the God ruling over the kingdom was a
loving and forgiving father, a fact implicit in his use of the word "Abba,"
one of a handful of Aramaic words attributed to Jesus in the gospels. Usually
translated as "father," the word means "daddy" and implies
a secure, trusting relationship. Perhaps the story of the prodigal son, the
most perfect and moving parable attributed to Jesus, exemplifies the kind
of parental concern and forgiveness that Jesus envisioned God as exercising
over the kingdom.

Synoptic Titles Applied to Jesus

Readers may question whether the synoptic narratives portray Jesus, the itinerant
and healing herald of the kingdom, as human or more than human. Typically,
the text emphasizes Jesus' human side, presenting him in reverential but non-divine
terms. Called the Son of God, a title that could be applied to a king of Israel
seen as a representative of God (II Sam. 7:l4), or to Israel viewed as a corporate
entity (Exodus 4:2l), Jesus also was referred to as "lord," which
simply means "master." The terms "messiah" and "christ,"
both used to describe Jesus, mean nothing more than "anointed,"
the former being a Hebrew term and the latter its Greek equivalent.

Those with a special spiritual responsibility such as a priest (Lev. 8:l2)
or a king (l Sam. l0:l) were anointed. Indeed, Isaiah refers to the Persian--and
therefore pagan-- king Cyrus as "a messiah of the Lord" (45:l).
The words "savior" and "redeemer" indicate one capable
of rescuing the people from a perilous situation, either spiritual or political,
and of the latter, Israel had known quite a few. In short, the titles applied
to Jesus in the synoptic gospels do not of themselves indicate divinity, but
rather extreme reverence, acknowledgment of high spiritual responsibility,
and intimacy with God.

Markedly human as the synoptics' portrayal of Jesus is, Matthew and Luke
nevertheless give clues of an idealizing process at work. Mark, the earliest
and most unadorned of the gospel writers, does not hesitate to speak of Jesus
in the most human terms possible. Ascribing to Jesus such an ordinary emotion
as anger (10:14), he mentions that some people considered Jesus insane (3:21).
He describes circumstances in which Jesus "could not" work any miracles
(6:5) or in which Jesus cured only "many" of the afflicted present
(l:34). He also identifies Jesus through his maternal descent (6:5) and never
mentions a father.

In parallel passages, the other synoptics tend to gloss over the human emotions,
the accusation of insanity, and the limitations of power. The texts also adjust
Jesus' identity to reflect paternal descent, thereby eliminating any possible
implication of illegitimacy. Matthew and Luke reveal a stage in the idealization
process, an intermediate phase in which Jesus begins to assume better-than-human
dimensions. That evolution climaxes in the gospel of John which equates Jesus
with Divinity itself.

The Logos, the Divinized Jesus, and the Gospel
of John

The gospel and three epistles bearing the name of John suggest another early
Christian school of thought, together with a dramatically different portrait
of Jesus. So different is this Johannine tradition that it uses neither the
word "apostle" nor a single parable. If the controlling metaphor
in the synoptics is that of the kingdom and the kingdom's herald, in John
the controlling metaphor is that of the divine Logos (or Word) made flesh.
This shift describes a Jesus pre-existing with God and one with God. Although
the term logos appears only at the beginning of the gospel, the notion of
descent from heaven, and the subsequent companion notion of return to heaven,
provide a narrative framework for the entire gospel. Mention of the kingdom,
evident on nearly every page of the synoptics, barely receives three references
in the entire gospel of John. Whereas the synoptics emphasize God and his
kingdom on earth, John stresses Jesus himself. The fourth gospel uses the
term logos in a distinct way and equates Jesus with the logos.

Although the term logos as used by John does not appear in the other synoptic
gospels, the word was quite commonplace among Hellenized thinkers, and even
among some Hellenized Jews. Philosophically it connoted the spiritual agent
responsible for the creation and orderly running of the universe. At the end
of the 6th century B. C., Heraclitus adopted the term in his philosophical
system; Zeno (c. 335-263), the founder of the Stoic school of thought, speaks
of "The general law, which is right reason (logos) pervading everything."
Religiously, logos might be used as the masculine equivalent of "sophia"
or wisdom and imply the guiding hand of God in creation.

No Hellenized philosoher, however, had ever envisioned the logos as having
taken on flesh and become incarnate. John takes this bold step with Jesus.
By identifying Jesus with the logos, John reveals a faith in Jesus that raises
the latter above the purely human and identifies him with God and the creative
process itself. Futhermore, John attempts to exalt and interpret Jesus to
a Hellenized audience in terms familiar to both author and audience.

Certainly the explanation of Jesus as divine--known as high Christology--was
more likely to find acceptance among Hellenized people, since many of these
lacked the monotheistic tradition of orthodox Judaism. For example, when Paul
and Barnabas are described as having performed a miracle at Lystra in Asia
Minor, the people exclaim, "The gods have come down to us in the likeness
of men" (Acts l4:ll). The rigor of the commandment forbidding the worship
of strange gods makes it impossible to imagine such a reaction among the Aramaic-speaking
Jews listening to Jesus or witnessing his deeds. The relatively low, albeit
evolving and idealizing, Christology of the Synoptics moved toward the higher
Christology found in John. That movement eventually caused the unbridgeable
chasm between the originating Jewish, and subsequent Christian, communities.

Interpreted Biography

Which portrait of Jesus is correct? That of the charismatic and human preacher
and healer announcing the kingdom, or that of the divine logos made flesh?
Whether an individual reconciles and accepts both, or separates them and accepts
only one, or none, remains an intensely personal choice. Regardless, students
may well ask about the historical character of the gospels which render us
these portraits.

The beginning of this chapter speaks about the Jesus of faith and the Jesus
of history. The gospel books seem to present Jesus in the former manner rather
than the latter, and readers cannot regard these books as undiluted historical
narrative. Historical accounts always involve interpretation of the events
they represent, of course. In depicting Jesus, the authors resorted to writing
techniques such as verbal attribution and narrative shaping. In the first
style, the writers assign words to Jesus which he did not speak, while in
the latter, they describe circumstances and events that may not have taken
place. Consequently, in discussing gospel events, one is best advised to distinguish
between the narrative Jesus and the historical Jesus.

Writing practices like verbal attribution and narrative shaping were not
meant to deceive, nor would modern Western historians, who value documentable
and verifiable facts, use them today. The gospel writers reflect a different
emphasis, an emphasis on the significance of Jesus's life, in an effort to
interpret Jesus for the emerging Christian communities. For example, Mark
quotes Jesus as saying, "If she [a woman] divorces her husband and marries
another, she commits adultery" (Mk l0:l2). Jesus could not possibly have
spoken these words since Jewish law did not permit a woman to divorce her
husband. Mark is simply applying what he considered to be Jesus' thinking
to the needs and circumstances of the Gentiles within his community. Matthew
describes Jesus preaching on a mountain (Mt 5:l), whereas the parallel passage
in Luke shows him teaching on a plain (Lk 6:l2). Writing for a Jewish audience,
Matthew undoubtedly tries to draw an implicit parallel between Jesus and Moses.
Such examples of verbal attribution and narrative shaping abound. That is
what we would expect in an age lacking tape recorders, shorthand, typewriters,
and mass dissemination of information. Thucydides, writing about the Peloponnesian
War, stated the methodology employed by him and by the gospel writers as well:
"My habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded
of them by the various occasions."

Besides these scribal liberties and the idealization mentioned earlier, other
problems make it difficult to distinguish between what Jesus actually said
and did from what the early Christian communities attributed to him. Jesus
spoke in Aramaic and his words were reported in Greek, from thirty-five to
sixty years later. Who assumed the notoriously difficult task of translating
and who vouched for the accuracy of that translation? In addition, one must
consider how much distortion inevitably inheres in oral transmission.

Consequently, some scholars view the gospels as interpreted history, as idealized
biography in which the Jesus of history evolved into the Jesus of faith within
the emerging Christian communities. However, the Jesus of faith known through
the gospels and engendered by the hopes and aspirations of these communities
inevitably is linked to the Jesus of history, who actually did exist.

The Death of Jesus

The death of Jesus leaves many unanswered questions. For one thing, the gospel
accounts are inconsistent in some important details. For example, Matthew
describes the last supper as the passover meal (26:18) while John describes
the event as taking place the night before the passover (18:28). Moreover,
in chapter l4 of his gospel, Mark describes an appearance of Jesus before
the Sanhedrin, a judicial council. John mentions nothing of this; instead
he has Jesus come before Annas and Caiaphas (18:12). Perhaps one answer is
to be found in the assertion that the Romans alone could render judgment on
capital offenses (Jn 18:31). Another is that the claim to being a spiritual
messiah was simply not an indictable offense.

Quite probably, the explanation for the death of Jesus lies in a Roman misunderstanding
of the kind of kingdom Jesus advocated. Sometimes the gospel documents refer
to that kingdom as God's (Mk l4:25), and sometimes as Jesus' (Lk 2l:27). The
latter simply may indicate that Jesus considered himself to hold a position
of authority, a fact supported by the account of a quarrel among the disciples
concerning their place of honor within the kingdom (Mt 20:2l). However, nothing
in the documents suggests that Jesus preached a political kingdom to be achieved
by force of arms. Nevertheless, John describes Jesus as entering Jerusalem
welcomed by a large crowd shouting, "King of Israel!"

Mark, on the other hand, mentions a recent insurrection (15:7). The combination
of a shouting crowd and the cries of "King" would excite the suspicions
of any Roman garrison keeping watch over a populace unhappy with Roman rule,
particularly if the shouts were directed at one already known for his belief
in the impending establishment of a kingdom. And it was as king, as a perceived
threat to Roman rule, that Jesus was executed after the Romans had placed
a sign on his cross alluding to kingship (Jn l9:l9).

The death of Jesus established a link between suffering and spirituality
by not only placing an official seal on that link, but also by giving subsequent
generations of Christians in the Middle Ages and beyond a sacred destination--the
city of Jerusalem--for their pilgrimages. Jesus' association with that same
city, in addition, gave medieval Christians a strong proprietary sense toward
it, that even prompted them to shed blood in the Crusades rather than yield
it to the Muslims.

Furthermore, suffering for the sake of the kingdom, whether stemming from
self-denial, human hardship, or persecution, was seen as having a redemptive
quality. This association perpetuated an ascetical ideal in the Middle Ages
that glorified abnegation in life, self-denial in the monastery, and martyrdom
in the Crusade. In his infancy narrative, for example, Matthew paints a picture
of the slaughter of children, and that became notable for its wider, mythic
dimensions.

The Truth of Myth

We speak of myth in the Greek Testament in a special way. As previously
discussed, the word myth derives from the Greek word "mythos," which
simply means "story." But a myth has come to mean a story of a very
special kind, one that imaginatively explores some fundamental truth about
spiritual life and values. Lacking our modern complex and technical vocabulary,
the ancients relied not so much on abstract analysis as on narrative suggestion
in order to explore ideas basic to human existence. The Oedipus myth of antiquity,
contrasted with the highly technical and detailed Oedipal theory of Freud,
provides a case in point. Similarly, the gospel writers used myths or stories
precisely in this sense. If, as the Passages for Study show, the parable is
a short story with one moral lesson, and the allegory a more complex story
with diverse elements standing for hidden equivalents, then the myth is a
story that explores the deepest truths about the inner life of human beings
and their relationship to the world and God. Moveover, because its content
deals with such fundamental and universal truths, the myth lent itself to
evocative recitation and ritual re-enactment.

The infancy narrative of Matthew, contrasted with that of Luke, provides
a good example of the use of myth, or, to preserve the appropriate context
here, midrash, the Hebrew word for the oral commentary on biblical
texts that Jewish teachers (like Jesus himself) practiced. Both accounts relate
Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, and both conclude with a journey to Nazareth. But
between these two events, the stories differ markedly. Luke describes the
apparition of angels and shepherds, the circumcision of the child after eight
days, the purification of the child's mother in the temple according to Jewish
custom, and the prayers of thanksgiving uttered by some by-standers. Thus
according to Luke, between Bethlehem and Nazareth, there occurred a handful
of events which could not have taken very long.

Matthew, on the other hand, presents a different and more time-consuming
set of events between the birth in Bethlehem and the journey to Nazareth.
He describes wise men following a star, conversing with King Herod, offering
gifts to the child, and departing surreptitiously. His purpose here is to
emphasize the acknowledgement of the Messiah by the Gentiles, represented
by the three kings who bear gifts. He further delineates the flight of Jesus
and his family to Egypt, the slaughter of children two years of age and younger
by Herod, the eventual death of Herod, and finally the return of Jesus from
Egypt to the Holy Land. Then he tells of the settlement in Nazareth.

As recounted in Matthew and Luke, the events between the birth in Bethlehem
and the settlement in Nazareth are totally different and impossible to reconcile
chronologically. The difference probably may be explained by the use of myth,
or purposeful commentary, at the very least in Matthew. The story of the wise
men and the star suggests that the wisdom of the world will be guided by,
and subservient to, divine wisdom. The story of Herod's slaughter of children--a
momentous event mentioned only in Matthew and nowhere else--prepares the followers
of Jesus for suffering. The return from Egypt parallels the account in Exodus
for the benefit of Matthew's Jewish audience. Matthew's infancy story, then,
presents a narrative construct of mythic dimensions intended to suggest ideas
about the Christian faith and its relationship to human wisdom, about personal
suffering, and about religious parallels.

What is the relationship between such a myth and the historical Jesus? Perhaps
Matthew's infancy narrative does not represent a myth replacing history,
but rather a myth in history. Readers might view such a narrative as
similar to an historical novel: the text is an imaginative and probing elaboration
with an ultimate foundation in an historical event.

Paul

No introduction to the Greek Testament, however brief, would be complete
without a reference to Paul. More than any other missionary, Paul established
Christianity by his tireless work with the Gentiles, among whom alone Christianity
took hold and eventually flourished. A convert who never saw Jesus in the
flesh, Paul focused his teaching on the meaning of Jesus in the spiritual
lives of his listeners rather than on the events of Jesus' life. Perhaps Paul's
most lasting contribution was his insistence on justification by faith, evident
in the pessimistic tone which sometimes appears in his writings. In the introductory
chapters of his letter to the Romans, for example, Paul speaks of all people
being in sin. He understood sin in the Jewish sense as being failure to live
up to a spiritual ideal. He believed, therefore, that attaining acceptance
before God, which he calls justification, could not be achieved by observing
religious rules, which people would inevitably break, but rather through faith.
He cites as the exemplar of faith the figure of Abraham, who trusted totally
and unquestioningly in God. For Paul, that same sense of trust, channeled
through Jesus, provides access to God and fsmakes one a spiritual heir of
Abraham.

One legacy that Paul left behind was a restrictive, almost repressive, sexual
ethic. Perhaps, however, the repression resulted more from subsequent interpretation
than Pauline intention. Paul restated in Christian terms the view that woman
was subordinate to man (Ephesians 5:22). In his first letter to the Corinthians,
he clearly conveys that he considers marriage a concession to human weakness:
"It is good for man not to touch woman, yet for fear of fornication,
let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband"
(7:ll). In verse 8, he repeats the same idea: "But if they do not have
self-control, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn."
He obviously prefers the unmarried state: "I would have you free from
care. He who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he
may please God. Whereas he who is married is concerned about the things of
the world, how he may please his wife; and he is divided. And the unmarried
woman and the virgin thinks about the things of the Lord, that she may be
holy in body and in spirit" (v. 32). The net effect of this teaching
was to make virginity an ideal, and to contain all sexual activity in marriage,
a religiously inferior condition necessitated by human weakness. The severity
of this teaching probably reflects Paul's expectation that the kingdom of
God was shortly to be ushered in, and that it would be best to prepare oneself
in anticipation of its arrival.

In the developing Middle Ages, in addition to the economic and social distinction
between classes, this Pauline thinking added the further distinction between
the unmarried priests, nuns, monks, and friars, all presumably free to think
about "the things of the Lord," and the morally weaker masses "concerned
about the things of the world." Moveover, the view of virginity as a
spiritually superior state inevitably raised the question of sex and its morality.

The development of priestly celibacy had its roots in several biblical directives,
one forbidding second marriages to church leaders (1 Tim 3:2), and another
encouraging occasional sexual abstinence as an aid to prayer (1 Cor
7:5). But the celibacy ideal had an economic side too. A Justinian law of
529 forbade the ordination of married bishops in order to prevent church property
and wealth from going to the bishop's children. Mandatory celibacy gradually
extended to all priests, and penalties for infractions could be harsh. Concubines,
wives, and children of offending clergy could be reduced to the status of
slaves of the Church. Still, priests resisted celibacy, as is evident from
the strenuous efforts at reform made by Pope Gregory VII in the eleventh century.
In reaction, the bishops at the Synod of Paris called these new Gregorian
celibacy rules "irrational" and threw an abbot into jail for defending
them. Tensions between a mandating Church administration on the one hand,
and a recalcitrant clergy on the other, continued, as is evident from many
passages in Dante, Chaucer, and medieval writers. They reached a breaking
point in the Renaissance and Protestant Reformation, when Protestants rejected
mandatory celibacy altogether.

All medieval writers, from Augustine (d. 430) and Gregory (d. 604) onwards,
saw sex as tainted by evil and justified only by the intention to procreate.
Only after one thousand long years of this thinking did a theologian by the
name of Martin Le Maistre (d. 1481) finally evaluate sex as something good
in itself in addition to being a means for child-bearing.

The Influence of the Greek Testament

The Greek Testament transformed the world of antiquity. Written in the language
of one ancient culture, describing events that occurred under the rule of
another, and growing out of the religion of a third, this set of books drew
in the currents of Judaic and classical civilization and then released them
altered and recharged to reshape the cultural landscape of the Mediterranean
world and to create an entirely new civilization, that of medieval Europe.